NELL REASON, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
MOTOROLA, INC., APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the claimant was not entitled to compensation for household services and that the employer was not liable for unauthorized out-of-state medical bills due to lack of proper notice.
A claimant sought compensation for attendant or nursing services, which the deputy commissioner denied, finding she only required household help. The …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Attendant Care Benefits cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, Judge.
The claimant appeals a workers’ compensation order denying her claim for attendant or nursing type services. The employer cross-appeals that portion of the order directing it pay out-of-state medical bills. We affirm the issue on appeal and reverse the issue on cross-appeal.
Based on the testimony of the claimant, her husband, and the two attending doctors, the deputy commissioner (deputy) made a factual finding that the claimant needed household help and not attendant or nursing type care within the purview of § 440.13, Fla.Stat. The claim for attendant and nursing care was therefore denied. There is competent substantial medical evidence to support the deputy’s finding that claimant required household help or housekeeping services, not attendant or nursing type care and that the type of services performed by the husband were not the attendant or nursing type care which is compensable under § 440.13. The employer is not required to furnish housekeeping and related services. South Coast Construction Co. v. Chizauskas, 172 So. 2d 442 (Fla.1965); City of Leesburg v. Balliet, 413 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
The employer contends the deputy erred in ordering it to pay the bills of various out-of-state doctors, hospitals, and clinics for treatment because they were unauthorized, timely bills and reports were not filed with the employer as required by § 440.13(1), Fla.Stat., and the hospital admissions were not of an emergency nature. The deputy found good cause for their failure to comply with the requirements of § 440.13(1) because they were out-of-state and not familiar with the law. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse and does not constitute good cause for failure to comply with the law. Accordingly, that portion of the order directing payment of these bills is reversed.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
MILLS, J., concurs.
JOANOS, J., dissents without written opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Plaza Materials Corp., 908 So. 2d 360 (Fla. 2005)…Many cases have recognized the maxim, as old as the law itself, that ignorance of the law is no excuse. See, e.g., Fla. Bar v. Dubow, 636 So. 2d 1287, 1288 (Fla.1994); D.F. v. State, 682 So. 2d 149, 152 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Reason v. Motorola, Inc., 432 So. 2d 644, 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Thus, Plaza Materials is presumed to know the operative law affecting its rights and obligations. I note that the bond in this case expressly cited section 255.05. Thus, Plaza Materials was warned to read it. Further under…
-
Barkett Computer Serv. & Liberty Mut. Ins. v. Santana, 568 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…(Fla. 1st DCA 1983). However, the general rule remains that ordinary household duties performed by a family member are not the responsibility of the EC. South Coast Construction Co. v. Chizauskas, 172 So. 2d 442 (Fla.1965); Reason v. Motorola, Inc., 432 So. 2d 644 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); City of Leesburg v. Balliet, 413 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). None of the exceptions apply in the instant case. Claimant’s husband is not performing any of the nursing-type duties associated with attendant care, and claimant…
-
Castro v. E. Pass Enters., Inc., 881 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)…1995). This is true even though the alleged estoppel was based on omission. See Pelican Is. Prop. Owners Ass’n., Inc. v. Murphy, 554 So. 2d 1179, 1181 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). No party can claim ignorance of the law. See, e.g., Reason v. Motorola, Inc., 432 So. 2d 644, 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Neither is there any record evidence of affirmative deception on Appellant’s part. There is no evidence of intent to mislead Appellee into believing it did not need to file a statement of claim in probate court. Appellant’…
Authorities Cited
- S. Coast Constr. Co. & Bituminous Cas. Corp. v. Josie Chizauskas & the Fla. Indus. Comm'n, 172 So. 2d 442 (Fla. 1965)
- Horne v. Ellis, 413 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- City OF Leesburg & U. S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Balliet, 413 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)